1. Decisions of the Federal Social Court on social assistance (SGB XII)
1.1 – Federal Social Court (BSG), Judgment of 19 May 2022 – B 8 SO 1/21 R
Social assistance – basic income support for the elderly and those with reduced earning capacity – one-off needs – “white goods” – washing machine
Guiding principle of the editor of Tacheles e. V.:
Costs for replacing a washing machine should be saved from social assistance.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
2. Decisions of the State Social Courts on basic income support under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II)
2.1 – LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision of 06.04.2022 – L 8 AS 18/22 B ER
Exclusion of enforcement of a reimbursement claim by the basic income support provider in the case of a validly raised statute of limitations defense
Principle
1. The lack of enforceability of a reimbursement claim by the basic income support provider due to a validly raised statute of limitations defense leads to the suspension of enforcement proceedings pursuant to Section 14 of the Administrative Enforcement Act (VwVG), because enforcement would be inequitable in such a case. (Paragraph 6)
2. According to Section 50 Paragraph 4 Sentence 2 of the German Social Code, Book Ten (SGB X), the provisions of the German Civil Code (BGB) apply to the effect of the statute of limitations. (Paragraph 10)
Source: gesetze.berlin.de
2.2 – LSG Hamburg, judgment of June 16, 2022 – L 4 AS 246/19
Scope of social court investigation in cases where basic income support benefits are applied for by members of a household receiving benefits
Guiding principle
1. For persons living in a household receiving social assistance, the income and assets of their partner must also be taken into account when applying for basic income support benefits in accordance with Section 9 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II). (Paragraph 94)
2. For this purpose, the Social Court may also use the results of investigations by the public prosecutor's office, the statements made by the applicants in the other proceedings, as well as the findings and results made by another court. (Paragraph 98)
Source: www.landesrecht-hamburg.de
2.3 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, decision of 27 September 2022 – L 11 AS 415/22 B ER
Job centers do not have to pay for electricity meters for hot water boilers
(guideline editor of Tacheles e. V.).
1. In the area of the Social Code Book Two – Basic Income Support for Job Seekers (SGB II) – there is no legal basis for an entitlement to grant subsidies for the installation of a measuring device within the meaning of Section 21 Paragraph 7 Sentence 3 SGB II.
2. In the absence of an atypical individual need, the costs for a separate measuring device do not constitute a special need within the meaning of Section 21 Paragraph 6 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), but rather a general or typical need. If a special need existed, a loan would be the primary option.
3. Had the legislator intended to cover the costs of the measuring device, a corresponding explicit legal provision would have been expected in connection with the amendment of Section 21 Paragraph 7 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II).
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
2.4 – LSG Berlin-Brandenburg, judgment of September 14, 2022 – L 29 AS 620/18
Guidance note from the editor of Tacheles e. V.:
Regarding the question of whether the set-off pursuant to Section 42a Paragraph 2 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) may be declared before the due date of the counterclaim, the answer is affirmative.
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
2.5 – LSG Saxony-Anhalt, decision of 07.09.2022 – L 5 AS 108/22 NZB
Principle
1. The claim that the social court did not adequately examine the necessity of a move does not constitute a legal question requiring clarification.
2. A procedural defect due to a breach of the duty to investigate ex officio requires that the facts of the case and/or the submissions of the parties suggest that investigations should be carried out ex officio.
Source: www.landesrecht.sachsen-anhalt.de
3. Decisions of the social courts on basic income support under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II)
3.1 – SG Magdeburg, judgment of June 21, 2022 – S 28 AS 1977/16
Unemployment benefit II – accommodation and heating – reasonable accommodation costs – three-person household in Aschersleben in the Salzland district of Saxony-Anhalt – coherent concept of the basic income support provider – formation of comparison areas – representativeness of data collection – mapping of the landlord structure – transparent procedural control – reasonableness of a move – second cost reduction request – economic efficiency review
Principle
1. The concept applied by the defendant for determining the appropriateness values pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), as amended by the July 2019 report, meets the requirements of the law and the highest court rulings. (Paragraph 74)
2. The principle of procedural review does not result in an impermissible reversal of the burden of proof to the detriment of benefit recipients. (Paragraph 69)
3. Data collection for determining a reference rent to establish reasonable accommodation costs pursuant to Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) can be sufficiently representative even if it does not proportionally reflect the existing landlord structure of "private" and "institutional" landlords on the housing market. (Paragraph 121)
4. If the social security agency issues a second cost-reduction request to the eligible person, specifically and on a case-by-case basis granting the standard six-month period stipulated in Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 3 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II), the agency is bound by this request. Within this "second" six-month period, a move is then considered subjectively unreasonable for the household. (Paragraph 176)
5. Economic considerations do not, without a self-imposed obligation on the part of the administration, render a move unreasonable if not only the heating costs but also the accommodation costs exceed the reasonable limits. (Paragraph 185)
6. Section 22, paragraph 1, sentence 4 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) does not give rise to any subjective public rights for persons entitled to benefits. (Paragraph 192)
Guiding principle:
The comparative area formation carried out for the Salzland district is not objectionable. (Paragraph 76)
Source: www.landesrecht.sachsen-anhalt.de
4. Decisions of the social courts on employment promotion law (SGB III)
4.1 – SG Nuremberg, judgment of September 28, 2022 – S 22 AL 411/21
Guiding principle of the editor of Tacheles e. V.:
Shortened qualifying period for unemployment benefits justified despite contract extension (based on the judgment of the Higher Social Court of North Rhine-Westphalia of 20 February 2020 – L 9 AL 6/18, contra: Higher Social Court of Baden-Württemberg in the judgment of 18 May 2018 – L 8 AL 3995/16).
Source: www.socialgerichtsabilities.de
Note:
North Rhine-Westphalia State Social Court: Shortened qualifying period for unemployment benefits justified for film professionals despite contract extension
Continue reading: rsw.beck.de
5. Decisions of the State Social Courts on Social Assistance (SGB XII)
5.1 – Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court, Judgment of 08.09.2022 – L 8 SO 91/18
To enforce the priority-subordination relationship between youth and social assistance pursuant to Section 10 Paragraph 4 of the German Social Code, Book VIII (SGB VIII) vis-à-vis the social assistance provider after reimbursement of benefits to the previously responsible youth assistance provider pursuant to Section 89c Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book VIII (SGB VIII)
1. The responsibility of a rehabilitation provider for a unified rehabilitation process is not to be re-determined in accordance with Section 14 of the German Social Code, Book IX (SGB IX) in the case of a so-called continuation or follow-up application (see Federal Social Court decision of November 28, 2019 – B 8 SO 8/18 R – juris Rn 14 f.).
2. For the assessment of whether, in addition to the entitlement under youth welfare law to assistance with upbringing (residential care), there is also a corresponding entitlement to integration assistance under social welfare law, it is irrelevant whether the residential measure would not have been necessary given sufficient family resources. The competent social welfare agency has a priority obligation to provide services under Book VIII of the German Social Code (SGB VIII), regardless of which disability is the primary issue and whether a disability or a deficit in upbringing within the family of origin was the cause of the specific measure (following the Federal Social Court's ruling of April 4, 2019 – B 8 SO 11/17 R – juris para. 14).
3. The subject of a reimbursement procedure within the meaning of Sections 102 et seq. of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII), is only social benefits that the social security institution seeking reimbursement has itself provided or that are legally attributable to it due to a representation or agency relationship by virtue of an individual or general contractual agreement between social security institutions or by operation of law (see Federal Social Court (BSG), judgment of October 28, 2008 – B 8 SO 23/07 R – juris para. 22). Benefits reimbursed to a previously responsible youth welfare agency by the now responsible youth welfare agency pursuant to Section 89c para. 1 sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book VIII (SGB VIII), are not attributable to the latter as (its own) social benefits within the meaning of Section 104 sentence 1 of the German Social Code, Book X (SGB X), in a reimbursement dispute against a potentially primarily responsible social welfare agency.
Source: www.rechtsprachung.niedersachsen.de
6. Miscellaneous information on Hartz IV, social assistance, asylum law, housing benefit law and other legal codes
6.1 – Federal Fiscal Court (BFH): Extinction of child benefit claims as a result of social benefits and reimbursement claims by the job center
Further information: www.sis-verlag.de
6.2 – Accompaniment by a trusted person during examination by a medical expert is generally permissible, a contribution by attorney Helge Hildebrandt
More information: sozialberatung-kiel.de
6.3 – Claims for remuneration before and after insolvency proceedings – What employees should know, an article by lawyer Trixi Hoferichter
More information: www.anwalt.de
Author of the case law ticker: Tacheles editor Detlef Brock.
Source: Tacheles case law ticker
